lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [mm PATCH v3 1/6] mm: Use mm_zero_struct_page from SPARC on all 64b architectures
From
Date
On 10/17/2018 1:47 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 15-10-18 13:26:56, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> This change makes it so that we use the same approach that was already in
>> use on Sparc on all the archtectures that support a 64b long.
>>
>> This is mostly motivated by the fact that 8 to 10 store/move instructions
>> are likely always going to be faster than having to call into a function
>> that is not specialized for handling page init.
>>
>> An added advantage to doing it this way is that the compiler can get away
>> with combining writes in the __init_single_page call. As a result the
>> memset call will be reduced to only about 4 write operations, or at least
>> that is what I am seeing with GCC 6.2 as the flags, LRU poitners, and
>> count/mapcount seem to be cancelling out at least 4 of the 8 assignments on
>> my system.
>>
>> One change I had to make to the function was to reduce the minimum page
>> size to 56 to support some powerpc64 configurations.
>
> This really begs for numbers. I do not mind the change itself with some
> minor comments below.
>
> [...]
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
>> index bb0de406f8e7..ec6e57a0c14e 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
>> @@ -102,8 +102,42 @@ static inline void set_max_mapnr(unsigned long limit) { }
>> * zeroing by defining this macro in <asm/pgtable.h>.
>> */
>> #ifndef mm_zero_struct_page
>
> Do we still need this ifdef? I guess we can wait for an arch which
> doesn't like this change and then add the override. I would rather go
> simple if possible.

We probably don't, but as soon as I remove it somebody will probably
complain somewhere. I guess I could drop it for now and see if anybody
screams. Adding it back should be pretty straight forward since it would
only be 2 lines.

>> +#if BITS_PER_LONG == 64
>> +/* This function must be updated when the size of struct page grows above 80
>> + * or reduces below 64. The idea that compiler optimizes out switch()
>> + * statement, and only leaves move/store instructions
>> + */
>> +#define mm_zero_struct_page(pp) __mm_zero_struct_page(pp)
>> +static inline void __mm_zero_struct_page(struct page *page)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long *_pp = (void *)page;
>> +
>> + /* Check that struct page is either 56, 64, 72, or 80 bytes */
>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct page) & 7);
>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct page) < 56);
>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct page) > 80);
>> +
>> + switch (sizeof(struct page)) {
>> + case 80:
>> + _pp[9] = 0; /* fallthrough */
>> + case 72:
>> + _pp[8] = 0; /* fallthrough */
>> + default:
>> + _pp[7] = 0; /* fallthrough */
>> + case 56:
>> + _pp[6] = 0;
>> + _pp[5] = 0;
>> + _pp[4] = 0;
>> + _pp[3] = 0;
>> + _pp[2] = 0;
>> + _pp[1] = 0;
>> + _pp[0] = 0;
>> + }
>
> This just hit my eyes. I have to confess I have never seen default: to
> be not the last one in the switch. Can we have case 64 instead or does gcc
> complain? I would be surprised with the set of BUILD_BUG_ONs.

I can probably just replace the "default:" with "case 64:". I think I
have seen other switch statements in the kernel without a default so
odds are it should be okay.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-17 17:08    [W:0.049 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site